|
HP 供应商管理标准
Quality Survey
INTRODUCTION
Upon review of the pre-survey information from the supplier,
the HP team, at its discretion, will elect to conduct an
on-site survey.
The intent of the survey is to allow HP the opportunity to
eva luate the supplier’s quality, engineering, capacity,
financial, and manufacturing capabilities relative to critical
parameter and business requirements. The survey is intended
to identify areas within the supplier’s operations, which may
require improvement plans in order to meet HP’s requirements
and establish a long-term business relationship with HP.
The on-site survey will be scheduled through HP’s Commodity
Manager or Procurement Engineer. An itinerary for the survey
is forwarded to the supplier in order to allow the supplier
adequate time to prepare prior to the HP team’s arrival.
Surveys are conducted at the convenience of the supplier;
every effort is made not to interfere with normal business
activity.
At the start of the on-site survey, the HP Procurement
Engineer or Commodity Manager reviews the itinerary with the
supplier’s management team. This review is to ensure that the
survey process proceeds in a smooth and productive manner.
Upon completion of the survey, the HP team will meet off-site
to discuss the scoring of the survey and correlate the HP
team’s appraisal to the supplier’s self-appraisal. Upon
reaching a consensus, a review session is held with the
supplier’s management team to summarize the survey results and
address concerns highlighted during the survey. If
appropriate, the supplier and HP will develop an improvement
plan and milestone schedule follow-up action items and/or
future activity.
The following sections offer detailed descriptions of each
quality system element to be eva luated as well as the method
to be used for eva luation.
ELEMENT #1: QUALITY MANAGEMENT
1. Is there a formal company Quality Policy and are
Quality objectives and responsibility clearly stated
(including organizational charts indicating respective Quality
responsibility), widely distributed and understood through the
company.
Quality Objectives should include fitness for use,
performance, safety, reliability, service, delivery, cost and
customer satisfaction. There should be corporate and
department objectives. Score as follows:
0）No objectives
1）Written but not complete and / or known or
understood
2）Complete but no evidence that they have been
communicated
3）Complete and evidence that they have been
communicated to all managers and engineers
4）Complete and evidence that they are being
continuously communicated to all employees
2. To what extent are Quality objectives used to guide
planning?
Quality objectives should be referred to in other corporate
and department plans. They should be referenced in documents
regarding final business decisions. There should be
departmental linking of all Quality objectives. Score as
follows:
0）Not used
1）Appear in a few plans but not actually used
for decisions
2）Appear in some plans and used for some
decisions
3）Appear in all plans and actually used in most
4）Appear and used in all plans
3. Do all support organizations understand their role
in achieving Total Customer Satisfaction?
There should be evidence that quality is not just a
manufacturing program. Procurement, Accounting, Field
Service, etc. should show evidence that they know who their
immediate customers are and what the customers expect from
them. They should also know what affect their activities have
on the final customer. Score as follows:
0）No evidence that quality programs extend
beyond manufacturing
1）Very little evidence and no visible effort to
improve the situation
2）Evidence that a program is being initiated
that includes training far all employees
3）Evidence of significant improvements being
made because of a good program implementation
4）Evidence that significant improvements impact
the entire company
4. Are the quality procedures and policies current and
available at the point of application?
There should be specific detailed quality procedures and
policies that are up to date and available at the user's work
area, i.e. operator quality procedures and policies should be
easily accessible to the operators, maintenance procedures
should be easily accessible to everyone in maintenance, etc.
Score as follows:
0）Procedures and policies do not exist
1）Procedures and policies are not complete
2）Acceptable procedures and policies are not
well disseminated to all employees
3）Acceptable procedures and policies easily
accessible to all employees
4）Evidence of an innovative program where
policies and procedures are continuously reinforced to all
employees
5. Are continuous improvement principles understood by
all levels of Management?
All managers should have had formal documented continuous
improvement training and can speak easily about the various
tools and techniques. Score as follows:
0）No formal training and / or cannot discuss
tools
1）Few have documented training and none are
scheduled for training classes
2）Some have training and all others are
scheduled for class
3）All have training and can speak fluently on
tools
4）All managers can show evidence of use of
tools leading to significant improvement
6. To what extent does management solicit and accept
feedback from the work force?
There should exist a formal suggestion system, quality
circles, or on-going problems solving teams in order to offer
the work force an opportunity to make improvements to the
system. There should be documentation on the specific process
for soliciting ideas and on accepting ideas. Score as
follows:
0）Nothing exists
1）A process exists but few ideas are submitted
or accepted
2）An acceptable process exists some ideas are
submitted; some ideas are accepted and there is an on-going
program to expand
3）Process exists and many ideas are submitted
and decided on in a timely manner
4）Evidence exists that significant improvements
are being made as a result of employee involvement
7. Does a comprehensive training program exist?
There should be a detailed training program with assigned
responsibilities on implementation with documentation on which
employees should take what specific courses. There should be
money budgeted for the training and specific people assigned
to developing a training schedule for each employee. Score
as follows:
0）Nothing exists
1）An incomplete program exists with little or
no implementation
2）An acceptable program exists and is being
implemented slowly
3）Program exists, good implementation and
documentation, all employees have been trained
4）Program exists, all employees have been
trained, there is evidence that the content of the training
has been implemented in day to day activities
8. Are the quality and reliability goals aggressive
related to customer expectations and targeted for aggressive
continuous improvement?
Quality and reliability levels should be documented and
tracked. Goals and appropriate programs should be in place to
significantly reduce the defect and error rate. Defects are to
be reduced not by one (1), five (5), or ten (10) percent, but
by significant amounts of forty (40), fifty (50), and sixty
(60) percent. Score as follows:
0）Nothing done
1）Some defect levels tracked but no goals or
programs to reduce
2）Many defects tracked with goals and programs
in place to improve with on-going plans to expand
3）All customer critical defects tracked, goals
and programs are established, and improvement documented to
goals
4）Evidence that goals are being exceeded
9. How technically informed are the people who are
responsible for promoting continuous improvement?
The staff tasked with driving improvement should have had
formal quality training. There should be documented effort to
keep their knowledge base current by attending courses,
conferences, etc. Score as follows:
0）None of the above
1）A few have formal training but no program to
train all
2）Some have quality training with on-going
program to extend to entire staff
3）Entire staff has had documented acceptable
quality training with on-going program to up-date with
attendance of conferences and courses
4）All trained, all or most attend conferences
and courses routinely, and some speak at conferences or teach
in a certified program
10. Does management have”Defect Prevention” attitude to
achieve continuous quality improvement?
Projects should be funded and implemented that have a primary
goal of eliminating defects. The defect reduction nature of
the goals should be explicit in the project description.
Communication among all employees should constantly emphasize
the need and importance of defect reduction. Score as
follows:
0）No documented evidence of a defect
reduction attitude
1）Occasional reference to defect reduction
with no formal on-going program to expand
2）A few projects funded with an on-going
program to expand
3）Many projects funded and defined
specifically for defect reduction - all communication
constantly emphasizes defect reduction
4）Many projects funded and implemented with
documented success stories
ELEMENT #2: DOCUMENTATION
1. To what extent are manufacturing, product, process
and configuration documents under issue control?
There should be assigned responsibility and procedures to
maintain the revision control of all manufacturing, product,
process, and configuration documents. There should also be a
procedure to prevent the accidental changing of these
documents. The system should be fail-safe. Score as follows:
0）No system
1）Informal system, vague responsibility
2）Some responsibility and an acceptable
procedure with an on-going program to expand
3）Full assigned responsibility and complete
procedures within appropriate tracking and feedback
4）Evidence is presented to show that the system
is fail-safe
2. To what extent are “preliminary” and “Special
product” specifications controlled?
Are there procedures to identify and control the
specifications of preliminary and special products? Do they
have systems to inform manufacturing of special nature of
these products? Mechanism to prevent inadvertent changes
from being made to current production items. Score as
follows:
0）No systems
1）Informal procedures and little documentation
2）Some procedures and documentation with
on-going program to improve
3）Complete program with evidence of closed loop
corrective action
4）All of the conditions of score #3 plus status
of products in manufacturing is available real time
3. How well does the system ensure that the most
current customer specifications are available to the
manufacturing personnel?
Manufacturing procedures to efficiently and accurately update
customer specifications. Tracking system to eva luate
effectiveness of the system and feedback to correct errors.
Score as follows:
0）No system
1）Informal procedures, no documentation
2）Some acceptable procedures and documentation
with on-going program to improve
3）Complete procedures and documentation with
tracking and feed-back
4）Complete program with evidence of closed loop
corrective action
4. To what extent does the system ensure that the most
current material specifications are available to the
procurement function?
Are there procedures to efficiently and accurately update
incoming material. Are specifications available to the
purchasing department? Is there a system in place to prevent
manufacturing from confusing in coming material with material
of older specifications and a tracking system to correct
errors? Score as follows:
0）No system
1）Informal procedures and documentation with no
tracking
2）Some procedures, documentation and tracking
with on-going program to expand
3）Complete procedure, documentation and
tracking
4）Complete program with evidence of closed loop
corrective action
5. To what extent are incoming orders reviewed for
revisions and issue changes?
Procedures to review incoming orders to identify specification
changes and efficiently and accurately correct the internal
records of these changes and document the changes. Tracking
and feedback to the customer to verify that changes are to be
made. Score as follows:
0）No system
1）Informal procedures and documentation
2）Some acceptable procedures, documentation and
tracking with on-going program to improve
3）Complete procedures, documentation and
tracking
4）Complete program with evidence of closed loop
corrective action
6. How well is conformance to customer specifications
assured before an order is accepted?
Are Procedures in place to check available drawing revision
versus the revision being ordered? Are responsible personnel
available for order acceptance? Score as follows:
0）No system
1）Informal procedures with no documentation or
tracking
2）Some procedures and documentation with
on-going program to expand
3）Complete procedures, documentation, and
tracking
4）Complete program with evidence of closed loop
corrective action
7. To what extent are critical characteristics
classified?
Critical characteristics should be defined and treated
differently from other characteristics. Critical
characteristics should be part of the Process Management Plan.
There should be tracking to identity failures of the system.
Process and Product Flows should be available and used. Score
as follows:
0）No special treatment
1）A few procedures but little or no tracking
2）Some acceptable procedures with tracking and
an on-going program to expand
3）Complete procedures, documentation and
tracking with evidence that acceptable capability has been
achieved
4）Complete program with timely closed loop
corrective action demonstrated with plans and budget to
achieve outstanding capability for all critical
characteristics
8. To what extent are customers informed of changes
made to products controlled by customer drawings or
specifications?
Is there a system to issue a request for approval from HP
whenever a material, component, or process change is made to a
product that will affect fit, form or function controlled by
customer specification. System tracks status of request.
Score as follows:
0）No system
1）Informal system not documented
2）Some acceptable procedures and documentation
with on-going program to expand
3）Complete procedures and documentation
4）Complete program with closed loop tracking of
requests
9. Is there an effective internal deviation control
procedure and are customer requested deviations documented and
followed?
There should be assigned responsibility and procedures to
identify customer requested deviations of characteristics and
a mechanism to inform production. There should be
documentation. Score as follows:
0）No system
1）Informal responsibility and procedures
2）Some acceptable procedures, documentation,
and auditing with on-going program to improve
3）Complete program with tracking
4）Complete program with timely closed loop
corrective action demonstrated
10. Do new product development procedures exist and are
they followed in the design process?
Are there procedures to identify critical characteristics,
realistic specification and process capability of new product
development? Auditing and documentation to ensure proper
development steps are followed. Score as follows:
0）No system
1）Informal system, no auditing or documentation
2）Acceptable procedures, documentation and
auditing with on-going program to expand
3）Complete program with goals and dates
identified and met
4）Complete program with evidence of feedback
and closed loop corrective action demonstrated
ELEMENT #3: PROCUREMENT
1. To what extent is quality history considered along
with price, delivery, and service when making sourcing
decisions?
Is there a procedure to track the quality history of a
supplier and compare one to another via a rating system?
Supplier rating system should include cost and delivery in
addition to quality. Documentation should show the rating
system is used in making procurement decisions. Score as
follows:
0）No supplier rating system
1）Informal rating system not used consistently
2）An acceptable rating system with
documentation showing it is sometimes used with an on-going
program to expand its use
3）Complete rating program used consistently
with documentation to demonstrate its inclusion in the
procurement process
4）Evidence shows a complete program with total
cost comprehended on all procurement decisions
2. Are purchased material requirements adequately
specified?
Procedures to inform sub-supplier of material specifications
with all critical and ton-critical characteristics adequately
identified. Are there procedures to change specification with
sub-supplier and ensure that the changes are made? Score as
follows:
0）No system
1）Vague procedures and little or no
documentation when dealing with sub-supplier
2）Some procedures, documentation and tracking
in place with on-going program to incorporate the above
mentioned Quality system procedures into the sub-supplier's
quality program
3）Good sub-supplier quality program that
incorporates the above Quality System requirements and
tracking
4）Good sub-supplier quality program where the
supplier can demonstrate how HP critical characteristics will
be incorporated in the sub-suppliers Process Management Plan
3. Are sub-suppliers expected to conform exactly to
requirements and are statistical tools used in sub-supplier
control?
Documentation of sub-supplier’s quality is maintained and
tracked. Is there use of appropriate control tools to track
sub-supplier conformance to specification and capability (Cp
and Cpk). Are there procedures to document and inform
sub-supplier of potential problems with product
characteristics that were not detected by sub-supplier?
Sub-supplier should share appropriate quality data on products
and should eva luate their own capability. Score as follows:
0）No system
1）Informal procedure with little and / or no
quality communication with sub-supplier
2）Some procedure and documentation with
communication with sub-supplier and an on-going program to
improve
3）A complete program and documentation; many
sub-suppliers’ products are capable and feedback is documented
for those not capable
4）Complete program with all products capable
(Cpk > 1.33) and plans and budget in place to improve all
critical to Cpk > 2.0; evidence of use of other appropriate
statistical tools
4. To what extent does the supplier have appropriate
technical communications with its suppliers?
Procedure to routinely communicate quality levels and quality
needs of the supplier to its suppliers. Documentation should
be maintained and communicated with all appropriate company
employees. Score as follows:
0）No system
1）Informal communication with little or no
documentation
2）Some communication with documentation and
on-going program to improve communication with the
sub-suppliers
3）Complete program with tracking and documented
corrective action expectations
4）Complete program with evidence at closed loop
corrective action
5. Does an effective procured material and services
quality improvement program exist including sub-supplier
development?
There should be documented quality improvement programs with
specific projects outlined for sub-suppliers including
products to be improved, assigned responsibility, specific
measurements for improvement (PPM, Cpk, Cp, etc.) and a
time-table to monitor progress. A sub-supplier certification
should exist. Score as follows:
0）No program
1）Informal program, little documentation, few
products identified, with no time-table
2）Specific acceptable program, some products
and measurements identified with time-table and assigned
responsibility and an on-going plan to expand the activities
3）Complete documented program with some
significant improvement shown
4）Complete documented program with significant
improvement documented
6. Are receiving inspection facilities and equipment
adequate and properly maintained?
Receiving inspection area should have good lighting, proper
air conditioning cleanliness, etc. and all test equipment
properly maintained and calibrated. Gauge Reproducibility and
Repeatability should be routinely done. Traceability,
maintenance and calibration documentation should be
maintained. Score as follows.
0）Poor conditions; little calibration or
documentation
1）Good conditions; some calibration and
documentation
2）Good conditions with acceptable calibration
and documentation program that is in the process of being
implemented
3）Good conditions with complete calibration and
documentation program that includes an effective and complete
preventative maintenance program
4）All of the conditions for score #3 plus
evidence that the supplier is moving away from dependence on
receiving inspection through a data driven ship to stock
program
7. How well are receiving inspection procedures
documented and followed?
Procedures for the receiving inspection activity should be
thoroughly documented and periodically audited. Score as
follows:
0）No procedures
1）Informal procedures with little documentation
2）Same acceptable procedures and documentation
with an on-going program to improve
3）Complete procedures, documentation and
periodic auditing with evidence of closed loop corrective
action
4）All of the conditions for score #3 plus
evidence the supplier is moving away from dependence on
receiving inspection through a data driven ship to stock
program
8. Are receiving inspection results used for
corrective and preventive actions?
Procedures should be in-place to ensure that a timely closed
loop corrective action system is enforced. There should be a
specific form to feed back to the sub-supplier the fact of any
products defects found. Sub-supplier should be required to
respond with a corrective and preventive action plan and
demonstrate that a true root cause has been found and changes
are being made. Score as follows:
0）No system
1）Informal procedures and documentation with
little response from sub-supplier
2）Acceptable procedures and documentation with
some responses and evidence that activities are on-going to
improve the effectiveness of the program
3）Complete program that issues corrective
action requests to all sub-suppliers on all major problems
with timely response and follow-up
4）Complete program that issues corrective
action requests on all major problems and receives timely
responses and follow-up from all sub-suppliers and evidence
exists that significant improvement is resulting from the
effort
9. How effective are the procedures for storage and
timely disposition of discrepant purchased material?
Are there procedures for storing defective purchased materials
with proper identification and isolation from good product?
Discrepant material should be disposed of or returned to the
supplier promptly. Documentation and tracking should be
maintained. Score as follows:
0）No procedures, isolation, or identification
1）Informal procedures with vague identification
and storage plans
2）Acceptable identification and storage
procedures with an on-going program to improve its use
3）Complete documented procedures with
demonstrated use of these procedures
4）Complete documented procedures with tracking
with evidence that the method is fail-safe; i.e. it is
impossible to mix discrepant material with good
10. Is there an effective supplier certification program
and is it verified by independent checking?
Where conditions exist where the supplier cannot economically
maintain the equipment and / or expertise to verify the
critical characteristics of incoming material, there will be a
documented program where the supplier has certified the
sub-supplier’s process of making an “okay to ship” decision.
There will be periodic verification of the sub-supplier's
result by an independent testing service. Score as follows:
0）No certification program
1）Informal program with little documentation
2）Some aspects of an acceptable certification
program in the process of being implemented
3）Completely written certification program with
documentation of sub-supplier's fulfillment of certification
requirements
4）All of the conditions for score #3 plus
periodic documented statistical analysis comparing the
sub-supplier’s result with an independent verification;
evidence of corrective action if necessary
ELEMENT #4: MANUFACTURING AND MATERIAL CONTROL
1. Are process capabilities established and maintained
on all major processes?
Established procedure to eva luate the capability (Cp and Cpk)
of all new processes and routinely eva luate and track the
capability of current major processes. Track the capability
of product critical characteristics, key processes and key
process steps. If process targets are known, deviation from
target should be measured instead of deviation from mean.
Score as follows:
0）No system in place to routinely assess
capability
1）Capability done on some key processes and key
process steps
2）Capability done on some key processes and key
process steps with tracking done for improvement; on-going
program to improve capabilities
3）All processes have had capability done with
routine tracking for improvement; all Cpk > or = 1.33
4）All processes have capability routinely
eva luated and tracked for improvement; all Cpk > or = 1.50;
evidence of studies to identify process targets
2. Are in-process inspection, test operation, and
processes properly specified and performed
Complete documented procedures indicating a defined process,
specific test equipment, specific test or inspection process,
specified set-up conditions, and appropriate maintenance
records and tracking. An audit of employees in the area would
confirm they know where the documentation is and that they
know how to use it. Score as follows:
0）No written procedures
1）Some informal procedures with little
documentation
2）Some acceptable procedures and documentation
with employees informed, on-going program to improve the
procedures and their use
3）Completely documented procedure that all
employees know how to use
4）All of the criteria for score #3 plus
evidence that all employees are being trained and feedback
from employees used to improve process controls
3. How adequate are inspection facilities and
equipment?
Inspection areas should include adequate lighting, air
conditioning, cleanliness, etc. and all test equipment must be
properly maintained and calibrated. Gauge Reproducibility and
Repeatability should be routinely conducted. Traceability,
maintenance, and calibration documentation should be
maintained. Score as follows:
0）Poor conditions; little calibration or
documentation
1）Good conditions; some calibration and
documentation
2）Good conditions with acceptable calibration
and documentation program that is in the process of being
implemented
3）Complete calibration and documentation
program that includes an effective and complete preventative
maintenance program
4）Evidence that the employees are involved in
the calibration, maintenance, and gauge capability activity
involved in improvement of this area
4. Are the results of in-process inspection, test,
control, and audit used in the promotion of effective
corrective and preventive action?
Procedure to use results of in-process inspection to follow-up
on out of control conditions in order to correct problems by
identification of true root causes. Procedures and corrective
actions should be documented. Should follow a systematic
discipline in problem solving. Score as follow:
0）No procedures
1）Informal procedures to follow-up but no
documentation of verification of true cause
2）Some documented procedures and some
corrective action plan implemented with on-going program to
improve
3）Good program with successful identification
of true causes and satisfactory correction of problems
4）Good program that can be shown to be an
integral piece of the overall continuous improvement program;
all employees knowledgeable of root cause corrective action
disciplines and can demonstrate their use.
5. To what extent is preventative maintenance
performed on the equipment and facilities?
Detailed PM procedures with routine PM being done on a
specified schedule by specified people with detailed
documentation of when and what changes and adjustments are
made. Score as follows:
0）No procedures and little preventive
maintenance done
1）Informal procedures for PM with a vague
timetable
2）Some documented acceptable procedures with a
timetable and an on-going program to improve
3）Good PM program with a timetable and
documentation with improvement being made based on maintenance
data
4）Good PM program with employee training and
involvement; routine PM being done by the machine operators;
equipment cannot be used if PM is not performed
6. Are housekeeping procedures adequate and how well
are they followed?
Documented detailed housekeeping procedures with assigned
responsibilities for preventing confusion between finished and
unfinished product and confusion between good and bad product.
Housekeeping practices should in no way disrupt product flow
or jeopardize the quality of the product. Score as follows:
0）No procedures and evidence of poor
housekeeping
1）Erratic housekeeping without assigned
responsibilities
2）Some acceptable housekeeping procedures and
assigned responsibilities with on-going program to improve
3）Good housekeeping program with most areas
appearing neat and organized
4）Good program with all areas appearing neat
and organized; evidence of employee involvement in further
improving practices
7. Are procedures and facilities for storage, release,
and control of material adequate?
Procedures documented and facilities available to separate
materials for different phases of the operation. Labeling and
identification should be such that only the correct material
can be released to production at the appropriate time. Score
as follows:
0）No system
1）Informal procedures; storage random and
poorly identified
2）Acceptable procedures for material
identification with many errors occurring; on-going program to
improve its use
3）Complete procedures and good identification
4）Complete procedures; supplier can demonstrate
system is fail-safe and understood by all employees
8. Are in-stores and in-process materials properly
identified and controlled?
There should be lot traceability for all material. Are there
procedure and identification to prevent similar components
from being confused with one another? Documentation and
feedback to maintain adequate inventory control. Score as
follows:
0）No system or traceability
1）Informal system with vague identification and
poor inventory control
2）Acceptable identification system that is
documented and on-going program to improve its use
3）Documented procedure with audits showing
adequate inventory control
4）Documented procedure; supplier can
demonstrate system real-time status and is fail-safe.
9. Are material and finished goods protected from
corrosion, ESD, EOS, deterioration, or damage?
Material storage conditions (temperature, light, humidity,
vibration, static, etc.) must be adequate for what is being
stored. Storage areas should be identified as to what should
be stored there. There should be proper identification and
documentation to prevent errors. Score as follows:
0）No attention to storage conditions
1）A few materials stored properly
2）All material stored the same with attention
to temperature and humidity with no exceptional handling
3）Evidence that supplier knows that the storage
conditions are correct and well communicated
4）All of the conditions of score #3 plus
evidence of periodic audits with corrective action as
necessary
10. Are Process Management Plans established and
followed for critical parameters?
Process Management Plans link critical product parameters to
process control points within the supply and manufacturing
flow. Score as follows:
0）No process management plans
1）Informal process management plans
2）Process management plans focused on 100%
tests and inspections, very little comprehension of controls
to assure consistency of output
3）Process management plans focused on
controlling the consistency of output, clear reaction plan
when inconsistency is observed with any customer critical
parameter
4）Supplier can show that the process management
plan is a living document, with corrections and updates being
driven by customer feedback - plan is clearly a part of the
supplier's continuous improvement program once records and
tracking. An audit of employees in the area would confirm
they know where the documentation is and that they know how to
use it.
|
